Impact of glaucoma on visual functioning in Indians

Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science

Volumn 53, Issue 10, 2012, Pages 6081-6092

  Gothwal, Vijaya K ^a   Reddy, Shailaja P ^a   Bharani, Seelam ^a   Bagga, Deepak K ^a   Sumalini, Rebecca ^a   Garudadri, Chandra S ^b   Rao, Harsha L ^b   Senthil, Sirisha ^b   Pathak Ray, Vanita ^b   Mandal, Anil K ^b  

^a Vision Rehabilitation Centres   (India)

^b L V PRASAD EYE INSTITUTE   (India)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISEASE SEVERITY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; GLAUCOMA; HUMAN; INDIAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PERIMETRY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PSYCHOMETRY; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRE; RASCH ANALYSIS; SCORING SYSTEM; VISION; VISUAL FIELD DEFECT; AGED; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; INDIA; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; VISUAL ACUITY; VISUAL FIELD;

AGED; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; FEMALE; GLAUCOMA; HUMANS; INDIA; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRES; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; VISUAL ACUITY; VISUAL FIELDS;

EID: 84868658811     PISSN: 01460404     EISSN: 15525783     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.12-9885     Document Type: Article

References (69)

1. Thylefors B, Negrel AD, Pararajasegaram R, Dadzie KY. Global data on blindness. Bull World Health Organ. 1995;73:115-121.
2. Resnikoff S, Pascolini D, Etya'ale D, et al. Global data on visual impairment in the year 2002. Bull World Health Organ. 2004; 82:844-151.
3. Quigley HA. Number of people with glaucoma worldwide. Br J Ophthalmol. 1996;80:389-393.
4. Garudadri C, Senthil S, Khanna RC, Sannapaneni K, Rao HB. Prevalence and risk factors for primary glaucomas in adult urban and rural populations in the Andhra Pradesh Eye Disease Study. Ophthalmology. 2010;117:1352-1359.
5. Senthil S, Garudadri C, Khanna RC, Sannapaneni K. Angle closure in the Andhra Pradesh Eye Disease Study. Ophthalmology. 2010;117:1729-1735.
6. Palimkar A, Khandekar R, Venkataraman V. Prevalence and distribution of glaucoma in central India (Glaucoma Survey 2001). Indian J Ophthalmol. 2008;56:57-62.
7. Vijaya L, George R, Arvind H, et al. Prevalence of primary angle-closure disease in an urban south Indian population and comparison with a rural population. The Chennai Glaucoma Study. Ophthalmology. 2008;115:655-660, e1. Available at: www.aaojournal.org. Accessed January 17, 2012.
8. Vijaya L, George R, Baskaran M, et al. Prevalence of primary open-angle glaucoma in an urban south Indian population and comparison with a rural population. The Chennai Glaucoma Study. Ophthalmology. 2008;115:648-654, e1. Available at: www.aaojournal.org. Accessed Accessed January 17, 2012.
9. Ramakrishnan R, Nirmalan PK, Krishnadas R, et al. Glaucoma in a rural population of southern India: the Aravind comprehensive eye survey. Ophthalmology. 2003;110:1484-1490.
10. Jacob A, Thomas R, Koshi SP, Braganza A, Muliyil J. Prevalence of primary glaucoma in an urban south Indian population. Indian J Ophthalmol. 1998;46:81-86.
11. Dirani M, Crowston JG, Taylor PS, et al. Economic impact of primary open angle glaucoma in Australia. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol. 2011;39:623-632.
12. Lee DA, Higginbotham EJ. Glaucoma and its treatment: a review. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2005;62:691-699.
13. Hartmann CW, Rhee DJ. The patient's journey: glaucoma. BMJ. 2006;333:738-739.
14. Che Hamzah J, Burr JM, Ramsay CR, Azuara-Blanco A, Prior M. Choosing appropriate patient-reported outcomes instrument for glaucoma research: a systematic review of vision instruments. Qual Life Res. 2011;20:1141-1158.
15. Vandenbroeck S, De Geest S, Zeyen T, Stalmans I, Dobbels F. Patient-reported outcomes (PRO's) in glaucoma: a systematic review. Eye (Lond). 2011;25:555-577.
16. Nelson P, Aspinall P, Papasouliotis O, Worton B, O'Brien C. Quality of life in glaucoma and its relationship with visual function. J Glaucoma. 2003;12:139-150.
17. Crocker L, Angina J. Introduction to Classical and Modern Test Theory. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich; 1986.
18. DeVellis RF. Classical test theory. Med Care. 2006;44:S50-59.
19. Emberston SE, Reise SP. Item Response Theory for Psychologists. Marwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates; 2000.
20. Hambleton RK, Swaminathan H, Rogers HJ. Fundamentals of Item Response Theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications; 1991.
21. Hays RD, Morales LS, Reise SP. Item response theory and health outcomes measurement in the 21st century. Med Care. 2000;38:II28-42.
22. Gothwal VK, Wright TA, Lamoureux EL, Khadka J, McAlinden C, Pesudovs K. Improvements in visual ability with first-eye, second-eye, and bilateral cataract surgery measured with the Visual Symptoms and Quality of Life Questionnaire. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011;37:1208-1216.
23. Gothwal VK, Wright TA, Lamoureux EL, Pesudovs K. Cataract Symptom Scale: clarifying measurement. Br J Ophthalmol. 2009;93:1652-1656.
24. Gothwal VK, Wright TA, Lamoureux EL, Pesudovs K. Activities of Daily Vision Scale: what do the subscales measure? Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2010;51:694-700.
25. Khadka J, Pesudovs K, McAlinden C, Vogel M, Kernt M, Hirneiss C. Re-engineering the Glaucoma Quality of Life-15 questionnaire with Rasch analysis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;52:6971-6977.
26. Wang B, Aung T, Marella M, et al. Impact of bilateral open and closed-angle glaucoma on glaucoma-specific functioning in Asians. [published online ahead of print December 7, 2011]. J Glaucoma.
27. Anderson DR, Patella VM. Automated Static Perimetry. 2nd ed. St. Louis, MO: Mosby; 1999.
28. Foster PJ, Buhrmann R, Quigley HA, Johnson GJ. The definition and classification of glaucoma in prevalence surveys. Br J Ophthalmol. 2002;86:238-242.
29. Bailey IL, Lovie JE. New design principles for visual acuity letter charts. Am J Optom Physiol Opt. 1976;53:740-745.
30. Pelli DG, Robson JG, Wilkins AJ. The design of a new letter chart for measuring contrast sensitivity. Clin Vis Sci. 1988;2: 187-199.
31. Anderson DR. Automated Static Perimetry. St. Louis, MO: Mosby-Year Book; 1992.
32. Hodapp E, Parrish RK II, Anderson DR. Clinical Decisions in Glaucoma. St. Louis, MO: Mosby-Year Book; 1993.
33. Sponsel WE, Arango S, Trigo Y, Mensah J. Clinical classification of glaucomatous visual field loss by frequency doubling perimetry. Am J Ophthalmol. 1998;125:830-836.
34. Sponsel WE, Ritch R, Stamper R, et al. Prevent Blindness America visual field screening study. The Prevent Blindness America Glaucoma Advisory Committee. Am J Ophthalmol. 1995;120:699-708.
35. Mills RP. Correlation of quality of life with clinical symptoms and signs at the time of glaucoma diagnosis. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 1998;96:753-812.
36. Rasch G. Probabilistic Models for Some Intelligence and Attainment Tests. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 1960.
37. Andrich DA. A rating scale formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika. 1978;43:561-573.
38. Linacre JM. WINSTEPS Rasch measurement computer program. Chicago, IL: Winsteps. com; 2009.
39. Massof RW. The measurement of vision disability. Optom Vis Sci. 2002;79:516-552.
40. Norman GR, Sloan JA, Wyrwich KW. Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: the remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Med Care. 2003;41:582-592.
41. Sloan JA. Assessing the minimally clinically significant difference: scientific considerations, challenges and solutions. COPD. 2005;2:57-62.
42. Janz NK, Wren PA, Lichter PR, Musch DC, Gillespie BW, Guire KE. Quality of life in newly diagnosed glaucoma patients: the Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study. Ophthalmology. 2001;108:887-897; discussion 898.
43. Mills RP, Janz NK, Wren PA, Guire KE. Correlation of visual field with quality-of-life measures at diagnosis in the Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study (CIGTS). J Glaucoma. 2001;10:192-198.
44. Goldberg I, Clement CI, Chiang TH, et al. Assessing quality of life in patients with glaucoma using the Glaucoma Quality of Life-15 (GQL-15) questionnaire. J Glaucoma. 2009;18:6-12.
45. Gutierrez P, Wilson MR, Johnson C, et al. Influence of glaucomatous visual field loss on health-related quality of life. Arch Ophthalmol. 1997;115:777-784.
46. Mills RP, Drance SM. Esterman disability rating in severe glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 1986;93:371-378.
47. McKean-Cowdin R, Wang Y, Wu J, Azen SP, Varma R. Impact of visual field loss on health-related quality of life in glaucoma: the Los Angeles Latino Eye Study. Ophthalmology. 2008;115: 941-948, e1. Available at: www.aaojournal.org. Accessed January 17, 2012.
48. Wren PA, Musch DC, Janz NK, Niziol LM, Guire KE, Gillespie BW. Contrasting the use of 2 vision-specific quality of life questionnaires in subjects with open-angle glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 2009;18:403-411.
49. Parrish RK 2nd, Gedde SJ, Scott IU, et al. Visual function and quality of life among patients with glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 1997;115:1447-1455.
50. van Gestel A, Webers CA, Beckers HJ, et al. The relationship between visual field loss in glaucoma and health-related quality-of-life. Eye (Lond). 2010;24:1759-1769.
51. Viswanathan AC, McNaught AI, Poinoosawmy D, et al. Severity and stability of glaucoma: patient perception compared with objective measurement. Arch Ophthalmol. 1999;117:450-454.
52. Ross JE, Bron AJ, Clarke DD. Contrast sensitivity and visual disability in chronic simple glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol. 1984; 68:821-827.
53. Iester M, Zingirian M. Quality of life in patients with early, moderate and advanced glaucoma. Eye (Lond). 2002;16:44-49.
54. McKean-Cowdin R, Varma R, Wu J, Hays RD, Azen SP. Severity of visual field loss and health-related quality of life. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007;143:1013-1023.
55. Ramulu P. Glaucoma and disability: which tasks are affected, and at what stage of disease? Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2009;20: 92-98.
56. Rubin GS, West SK, Munoz B, et al. A comprehensive assessment of visual impairment in a population of older Americans. The SEE Study. Salisbury Eye Evaluation Project. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1997;38:557-568.
57. Elliott DB, Hurst MA. Simple clinical techniques to evaluate visual function in patients with early cataract. Optom Vis Sci. 1990;67:822-825.
58. Owsley C. Contrast sensitivity. Ophthalmol Clin North Am. 2003;16:171-177.
59. Hawkins AS, Szlyk JP, Ardickas Z, Alexander KR, Wilensky JT. Comparison of contrast sensitivity, visual acuity, and Humphrey visual field testing in patients with glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 2003;12:134-138.
60. Jampel HD, Schwartz A, Pollack I, Abrams D, Weiss H, Miller R. Glaucoma patients' assessment of their visual function and quality of life. J Glaucoma. 2002;11:154-163.
61. Richman J, Lorenzana LL, Lankaranian D, et al. Relationships in glaucoma patients between standard vision tests, quality of life, and ability to perform daily activities. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2010;17:144-151.
62. Richman J, Lorenzana LL, Lankaranian D, et al. Importance of visual acuity and contrast sensitivity in patients with glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 2010;128:1576-1582.
63. Noe G, Ferraro J, Lamoureux E, Rait J, Keeffe JE. Associations between glaucomatous visual field loss and participation in activities of daily living. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol. 2003; 31:482-486.
64. Guralnick MJ. Social competence as a future direction for early intervention programmes. J Ment Defic Res. 1989;33(pt 4); 275-281.
65. Daltroy LH, Larson MG, Eaton HM, Phillips CB, Liang MH. Discrepancies between self-reported and observed physical function in the elderly: the influence of response shift and other factors. Soc Sci Med. 1999;48:1549-1561.
66. Crowne DP, Marlowe D. A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. J Consult Psychol. 1960;24: 349-354.
67. West SK, Rubin GS, Munoz B, Abraham D, Fried LP. Assessing functional status: correlation between performance on tasks conducted in a clinic setting and performance on the same task conducted at home. The Salisbury Eye Evaluation Project Team. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 1997;52:M209-217.
68. Lorenzana L, Lankaranian D, Dugar J, et al. A new method of assessing ability to perform activities of daily living: design, methods and baseline data. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2009;16: 107-114.
69. Warrian KJ, Altangerel U, Spaeth GL. Performance-based measures of visual function. Surv Ophthalmol. 2010;55:146-161.